Tag Archives: Fundraising

Ted Cruz raises $12 million in Q3, and another million in the first 9 days of Q4

Texas Senator Ted Cruz
Texas Senator Ted Cruz

First, the report from last quarter from U.S. News and World Report. (H/T Doug)

Excerpt:

Ted Cruz raised $12.2 million in the past three months for his Republican presidential bid, about twice what competitor Marco Rubio collected in the same time period.

[…]So far it appears that another political outsider, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, is leading in quarterly fundraising. His campaign said last week it raised $20 million between July 1 and Sept. 30.

[…]The Cruz campaign noted it raised more than $1 million in the final 24 hours of September.

That was for the quarter ending in at the end of September. So how is Cruz doing in the first 9 days of October?

Pretty good:

Today, the Cruz for President campaign announced it raised $1 million in the first 9 days of the fourth quarter. Cruz’s impressive haul in just over a week comes off his successful third quarter fundraising, in which he pulled in more than $12 million. The early start in the fourth quarter brings his campaign’s total to more than $27.5 million.

[…]In 9 days, Cruz raised $1 million from roughly 20,000 donations of mostly $50 or less. Cruz also recently revealed his campaign has more than 6000 “sustainers”, donors who give monthly, that are able to fund his entire field operation across the country each month.

I saw another story that says that the Cruz campaign “has county chairs organizing in all 172 counties in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada”. This guy is making a serious push for the nomination, and he and Jindal are the last two strong conservatives standing.

Cruz has actually introduced a lot of legislation in the past, and his latest bill is very helpful for getting the Democrats to go on record on a very unpopular position that most Democrats hold.

Read this:

This week U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) introduced as a lead cosponsor the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act. The bill would withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. The legislation also incorporates critical elements of Kate’s Law, which Sen. Cruz introduced earlier this year, by imposing a five-year mandatory minimum sentence on any alien who illegally reenters the country after having been convicted of an aggravated felony or two prior illegal reentry offenses.

[…]“In light of the threat criminal aliens pose to the safety and security of our communities, we can no longer allow states and municipalities to take federal taxpayer money while turning a blind eye to the illegal aliens in their midst,” said Sen. Cruz. “What happened to Kate Steinle is heartbreaking. And the heartbreak is even more tragic given the circumstances. Clearly, our laws are not adequately deterring those who have already been deported from illegally reentering the country. I’m proud to join with my colleagues in sending the message that defiance of our nation’s laws will no longer be tolerated. Of course, stiff penalties alone will not suffice. Congress must hold this Administration accountable for its failure-if not its outright refusal-to enforce federal immigration laws and ensure the safety and protection of the American people.”

That’s what Republicans should be doing when there’s a Democrat President. Pass bills that get vetoed, so you can define yourself and tell the voters where the other side really stands. Politicians love to speak about issues that are popular, as long as they don’t have to alienate any voters by actually acting on it. Well, a veto of sanctuary cities tells everyone where Democrats stand on crimes committed by illegal immigrants. That’s what we need to do – make them show their real views.

Democrats resort to busing in people to fill up DNC convention

Romney vs. Obama: campaign fundraising
Romney vs. Obama: campaign fundraising

Fox News reports.

Excerpt:

College students from across North Carolina will arrive in Charlotte by the busload. Same with members of predominantly black churches in neighboring South Carolina.

Their goal: help fill a 74,000-seat outdoor stadium to capacity when President Obama accepts the Democratic nomination Thursday night.

[…]Democrats have been fretting for months over whether the president can draw a capacity crowd at Bank of America Stadium. Polls show voter enthusiasm is down, as are Obama’s crowds for his battleground state campaign rallies.

[…]Thursday’s event is certain to draw comparisons to 2008, when Obama accepted the Democratic nomination before a capacity crowd at an 84,000-seat stadium in Denver. There was little concern back then over whether Obama would fill the stadium, in part because he was easily attracting tens of thousands of people to his campaign rallies across the country.

This time around, Obama’s crowds are far smaller. He drew his biggest audience at his campaign kick-off rally in May, a 14,000-person crowd at Ohio State University. About 13,000 people attended Obama’s rally at the University of Colorado in Boulder Sunday.

Not surprising, given that Obama kicked-off his re-election campaign in a half-empty stadium. The only people who are going to vote for this guy are the people who are dependent on federal government welfare and spending.

And look, Obama is losing badly in the fundraising, too: (links removed)

Mitt Romney has extended his lead over President Obama in this election cycle’s race for campaign cash.

The Republican had almost $186 million in cash on hand at the end of July, compared to $124 million for Obama — figures that include donations made to the campaigns, party committees and joint fundraising efforts.

[…]In 2008, Obama shattered all previous fundraising records by bringing in an excess of $750 million — far more than John McCain.

But Romney has dashed any hopes Obama might have harbored for continued dominance in 2012. The past two months have been particularly fruitful for the Republican challenger, as Romney’s team produced a haul of more than $200 million in June and July.

Over the same time period, Obama’s campaign mustered a comparatively modest $147 million.

And the gap between the candidates may be widening. The Romney campaign has said its fundraising totals have increased in recent days after the addition of Rep. Paul Ryan to the ticket.

Republicans have an even bigger money advantage when spending by super PACs and other outside groups is included.

According to the latest data from the Center for Responsive Politics, outside conservative groups have spent $221.5 million this cycle, while liberal groups have spent $55.6 million.

Romney wasn’t my first, second, or third choice for the Republican nomination, but he sure knows how to raise money. We’ll see whether he is able to hold his own in debates with Obama. I think that given the choice between four years of disastrous economic failures and four years of flip-flops, America will take the flip-flops.

UPDATE: Looks like the busing in wasn’t enough: Obama is moving his speech from the 74,000 capacity venue to a 20,000 capacity venue. Well, that’s one way to get a packed house.

WaPo: Obama’s energy policies “infused with politics at every level”

From Hans Bader.

Excerpt: (with the links removed)

Even the liberal Washington Post, which hasn’t endorsed a Republican for President since 1952, seems to be souring on the Obama Administration’s failed energy programs, saying they were “infused with politics at every level.” As it noted in discussing the Solyndra scandal: “Obama’s green-technology program was infused with politics at every level, The Washington Post found in an analysis of thousands of memos, company records and internal ­e-mails. Political considerations were raised repeatedly by company investors, Energy Department bureaucrats and White House officials. The records, some previously unreported, show that when warned that financial disaster might lie ahead, the administration remained steadfast in its support for Solyndra,” which was owned by major Obama backers, like George Kaiser.

As law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds notes, “all the ‘stimulus’ and ‘green energy’ stuff was never anything but a program to put taxpayer money into the hands of cronies and supporters.”

The Obama Administration hastily approved the  taxpayer subsidies for Solyndra despite obvious danger signs and warnings from accountants about the company’s likely collapse, themisgivings of agency officials, and the company’s mismanagement and lousy-quality products. (Solyndra executives are now pleading the 5th Amendment to avoid disclosing incriminating information.) The Obama administration was determined to shovel taxpayer money to its cronies as fast as it could. As an Obama fundraiser and Solyndra stakeholder exulted,  “there’s never been more money shoved out of the government’s door in world history and probably never will be again than in the last few months and the next 18 months. And our selfish parochial goal is to get as much of it . . . as we possibly can.”  “At the time Solyndra received its grant, Vice President Joe Biden declared that the Solyndra investment is ‘exactly what the [the stimulus package] is all about.’”

While diverting taxpayer money away from productive and efficient businesses to corporate-welfare recipients controlled by political cronies, the Obama Administration is busy wiping out jobs through thousands of pages of counterproductive regulations.  Some of these new regulations are designed to spawn lawsuits that will enrich trial lawyers at businesses’  and consumers’ expense.

Here’s an excerpt from the Washington Post piece he linked:

Since the failure of the company, Obama’s entire $80 billion clean-technology program has begun to look like a political liability for an administration about to enter a bruising reelection campaign.

Meant to create jobs and cut reliance on foreign oil, Obama’s green-technology program was infused with politics at every level, The Washington Post found in an analysis of thousands of memos, company records and internal ­e-mails. Political considerations were raised repeatedly by company investors, Energy Department bureaucrats and White House officials.

The records, some previously unreported, show that when warned that financial disaster might lie ahead, the administration remained steadfast in its support for Solyndra.

The documents reviewed by The Post, which began examining the clean-technology program a year ago, provide a detailed look inside the day-to-day workings of the upper levels of the Obama administration. They also give an unprecedented glimpse into high-level maneuvering by politically connected clean-technology investors.

They show that as Solyndra tottered, officials discussed the political fallout from its troubles, the “optics” in Washington and the impact that the company’s failure could have on the president’s prospects for a second term. Rarely, if ever, was there discussion of the impact that Solyndra’s collapse would have on laid-off workers or on the development of clean-
energy technology.

“What’s so troubling is that politics seems to be the dominant factor,” said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group. “They’re not talking about what the taxpayers are losing; they’re not talking about the failure of the technology, whether we bet on the wrong horse. What they are talking about is ‘How are we going to manage this politically?’ ”

The administration, which excluded lobbyists from policy-making positions, gave easy access to venture capitalists with stakes in some of the companies backed by the administration, the records show. Many of those investors had given to Obama’s 2008 campaign. Some took jobs in the administration and helped manage the clean-energy program.

Documents show that senior officials pushed career bureaucrats to rush their decision on the loan so Vice President Biden could announce it during a trip to California. The records do not establish that anyone pressured the Energy Department to approve the Solyndra loan to benefit political contributors, but they suggest that there was an unwavering focus on promoting Solyndra and clean energy. Officials with the company and the administration have said that nothing untoward occurred and that the loan was granted on its merits.

I am really surprised to see such a strongly-worded denunciation of Obama’s energy policies in a liberal newspaper.

Take a look at the rest of Hans’ post where he talks about the effects of environmental regulations on job creation and the stimulus’ effect on long-term economic growth. Basically, the only thing that Obama did right in 3 years was sign those free trade deals – and he sat on those for two years so as not to anger his union buddies.  The rest has been a disaster from start to finish.